Question for KCKH

105 views
Skip to first unread message

Bryan Brazeau

unread,
Jul 14, 2000, 3:00:00 AM7/14/00
to
Dear Katherine,

I love your father's work, and I've seen many of his movies. I was just
wondering if your father believed in God or if he was an atheist or what. If
you don't wish to answer this question, I'll fully understand.

Thanks,
Bryan

kckh

unread,
Jul 14, 2000, 3:00:00 AM7/14/00
to
Hmm, tricky. I think he believed in *something*, if you
understand
my meaning. He was a bit of a fatalist actually, but he was also
very superstitious.Truly a mixture of nature and nurture. I don't
know exactly what he believed, he probably would have said that
no-one can really ever know for sure, and that it would be rather
arrogant to assume that one could *know*. I asked him once after
The Shining, if he believed in ghosts. He said that it would be
nice if there "were" ghosts, as that would imply that there is
something after death. In fact ,I think he said, "Gee I hope so."

I for one, keep hoping to see him walk in the room that is my
kitchen one evening. It was the Avid room and he usually worked
at
night.

Now I cannot answer any more questions for a while, as I really
do
have to work.

-----------------------------------------------------------

Got questions? Get answers over the phone at Keen.com.
Up to 100 minutes free!
http://www.keen.com


Lord Bullingdon

unread,
Jul 14, 2000, 3:00:00 AM7/14/00
to
When Kubrick was asked if he had a religious upbringing, during
an interview, he answered: "No, not at all".

He also declared

"The most terrifying fact about the universe is not that it is
hostile but that it is indifferent, but if we can come to terms
with this indifference, then our existence as a species can have
genuine meaning. However dark the lightness, we must supply our
own light"

This affirmation seems to be incompatible with a person who
belives in an entity that created the universe and dictated the
laws, in a one Supreme being, the creator and ruler of the
universe.. I think Kubrick did not believe in God.

I also don't believe. I also think the universe is indifferent
to us.

AT

unread,
Jul 14, 2000, 3:00:00 AM7/14/00
to
On Fri, 14 Jul 2000 11:56:05 -0700, Lord Bullingdon
<figueiredo...@hotmail.com.invalid> wrote:

>When Kubrick was asked if he had a religious upbringing, during
>an interview, he answered: "No, not at all".
>
>He also declared
>
>"The most terrifying fact about the universe is not that it is
>hostile but that it is indifferent, but if we can come to terms
>with this indifference, then our existence as a species can have
>genuine meaning. However dark the lightness, we must supply our
>own light"
>
>This affirmation seems to be incompatible with a person who
>belives in an entity that created the universe and dictated the
>laws, in a one Supreme being, the creator and ruler of the
>universe.. I think Kubrick did not believe in God.
>
>I also don't believe. I also think the universe is indifferent
>to us.
>

So you have more insight into SK's personal beliefs than his own
daughter? And in the process gorssly over simplify the question into a
"yes or no" and "God as creator and ruler" terms...

Milich

unread,
Jul 14, 2000, 3:00:00 AM7/14/00
to
Defining God is nearly as difficult as proving that it exists.
Lord B is making incompatible the indifferent laws of the
universe and the notion of a supreme being (and by extension, as
alluded in KK's post, the supernatural). This is an error in
logic. The laws of the universe could be totally indifferent and
yet still leave room for some kind of supreme intelligence. In
America, the founders of the country are often painted, by
certain Christian fundamental groups, as being devout Christians
who believe in an active God who passes judgement etc. In truth
these men were deists. They believed in a supreme intelligence
but felt strongly that this intelligence is unconcerned with our
daily lives and not into administering eternal justice or
damnation.

By SK saying that the universe is indifferent does not imply that
he ruled out God or those "things" that seem to violate those
indifferent laws. Indeed (and this is totally my uneducated
guess) a man who saw such beauty in creation (gardens, animals,
the universe etc.) would marvel at it's construction in such a
way as to have at least momentary thoughts that all of this
cannot be random.

This past month Astronomy magazine ran an article detailing how
life exists because six specific numerical values that exist in
the universe are finely tuned so as to product the right
conditions for life to exist. The values include the attraction
between subatomic particles, the total mass of the universe, the
Hubble constant etc. They never used the G word but the writer of
the article used the term "a fine tuned universe" many times. I
have to believe that is SK's research, he had to have known about
these natural values.

BK

Lord Bullingdon

unread,
Jul 14, 2000, 3:00:00 AM7/14/00
to
>he probably would have said that no-one can really ever know
>for sure, and that it would be rather arrogant to assume that
>one could *know*.

>So you have more insight into SK's personal beliefs than his
>own daughter?

I don't think what I said is incompatible with what Katharina
said, on the contrary. what I said is based on what she said.
And I think she made a very brave comment, specially considering
that most of humanity affirms that there is a God, and that the
universe is not indifferent to us.

If someone says you cannot be sure of the existence of God, and
that it would be arrogant to assume one can argue there is a
God, this person surely would not believe in God.

He cannot affirm God doesn't exist, but he is SURE it is not
possible to prove God exists. Does that sound like the thoughts
of a believer?

Believing or not, from this point of view, is a matter of
opinion, of faith. There are no facts that prove God's
existence. How can you argue that a person that has this opinios
(wich I also share) believes in God?

Lord Bullingdon

unread,
Jul 14, 2000, 3:00:00 AM7/14/00
to
>Indeed (and this is totally my uneducated guess) a man who saw
>such beauty in creation (gardens, animals, the universe etc.)
>would marvel at it's construction in such a way as to have at
>least momentary thoughts that all of this cannot be random.

To appreciate the beauty of the world and the universe does not
imply in any belief in the existence of God. This is a wrong
idea.

Lord Bullingdon

unread,
Jul 14, 2000, 3:00:00 AM7/14/00
to
I really think Kubrick did not believe in God. This is my
opinion, of course, I cannot prove it. But I know it would be
arrogant to assume that one could affirm he believed in God. I'm
sure about this.

Lord Bullingdon

unread,
Jul 14, 2000, 3:00:00 AM7/14/00
to
Agnostic

"A person who holds that the existence of the ultimate cause, as
God, and the essential nature of things are unknown and
unknowable, or that human knowledge is limited to experience."

Lord Bullingdon

unread,
Jul 14, 2000, 3:00:00 AM7/14/00
to
"ATHEIST, AGNOSTIC, INFIDEL, SKEPTIC refer to persons not
inclined toward religious belief or a particular form of
religious belief. An AGNOSTIC is one believes it impossible to
know anything anything about God or about the creation of the
universe and refrains from commitment to any religious doctrine."

CPJ2000

unread,
Jul 14, 2000, 3:00:00 AM7/14/00
to
Milich wrote:

> Defining God is nearly as difficult as proving that it exists.
> Lord B is making incompatible the indifferent laws of the
> universe and the notion of a supreme being (and by extension, as
> alluded in KK's post, the supernatural). This is an error in
> logic. The laws of the universe could be totally indifferent and
> yet still leave room for some kind of supreme intelligence. In
> America, the founders of the country are often painted, by
> certain Christian fundamental groups, as being devout Christians
> who believe in an active God who passes judgement etc. In truth
> these men were deists. They believed in a supreme intelligence
> but felt strongly that this intelligence is unconcerned with our
> daily lives and not into administering eternal justice or
> damnation.
>
> By SK saying that the universe is indifferent does not imply that
> he ruled out God or those "things" that seem to violate those

> indifferent laws. Indeed (and this is totally my uneducated


> guess) a man who saw such beauty in creation (gardens, animals,
> the universe etc.) would marvel at it's construction in such a
> way as to have at least momentary thoughts that all of this
> cannot be random.
>

> This past month Astronomy magazine ran an article detailing how
> life exists because six specific numerical values that exist in
> the universe are finely tuned so as to product the right
> conditions for life to exist. The values include the attraction
> between subatomic particles, the total mass of the universe, the
> Hubble constant etc. They never used the G word but the writer of
> the article used the term "a fine tuned universe" many times. I
> have to believe that is SK's research, he had to have known about
> these natural values.

YIKES!

This thread is also going on at alt.tv.frasier.


CPJ2000


Lord Bullingdon

unread,
Jul 14, 2000, 3:00:00 AM7/14/00
to
>To believe that the way in which the physical universe
>manifests itself is suggestive of some organisational or
>purposeful 'authority' is quite different from
>simply "appreciat [ing] the beauty of the world..." and thus
>conluding the existence of God. etc.

Of course it is different. What I am saying is that a man can
see such beauty in creation (gardens, animals, the universe
etc.) and NOT marvel at it's construction in such a way as to


have at least momentary thoughts that all of this cannot be

random, at all.

To appreciate the beauty in creation does NOT imply in having
thoughts that it is not random. Not at all.

Accept this, stop being illogical and silly.

Lord Bullingdon

unread,
Jul 14, 2000, 3:00:00 AM7/14/00
to

Tony Minkoff

unread,
Jul 14, 2000, 3:00:00 AM7/14/00
to
In article <396FA09F...@sympatico.ca>, CPJ2000
<charle...@sympatico.ca> wrote:

> Milich wrote:
>
> > This past month Astronomy magazine ran an article detailing how
> > life exists because six specific numerical values that exist in
> > the universe are finely tuned so as to product the right
> > conditions for life to exist. The values include the attraction
> > between subatomic particles, the total mass of the universe, the
> > Hubble constant etc. They never used the G word but the writer of
> > the article used the term "a fine tuned universe" many times. I
> > have to believe that is SK's research, he had to have known about
> > these natural values.
>
> YIKES!

Natural constants perfectly tuned for the development of life do not
necessarily imply intelligent design. Probably the most popular
alternative explanation (if it can be considered a single explanation;
it has many interpretations) is the Anthropic Principle.

It should also be noted that the Anthropic Principle is not necessarily
inconsistent with the hypothesis that God exists. In fact, one might
argue that it necessarily implies that God exists‹ depending on what you
mean by "exists."

Cosmic thoughts like these lead to the most important question of all:

Is this the sort of thing that Frasier and Niles discuss when they get
high?

--
Tony Minkoff
admi...@uswest.net

derek

unread,
Jul 15, 2000, 3:00:00 AM7/15/00
to

Lord Bullingdon said:

>>Indeed (and this is totally my uneducated guess) a man who saw

>>such beauty in creation (gardens, animals, the universe etc.)

>>would marvel at it's construction in such a way as to have at
>>least momentary thoughts that all of this cannot be random.

> To appreciate the beauty of the world and the universe does not
> imply in any belief in the existence of God. This is a wrong
> idea.

If I might be so bold, M'Lud, you seem to be having problems with your
conclusions, or rather, usurping the conclusions of others. To believe that


the way in which the physical universe manifests itself is suggestive of
some organisational or purposeful 'authority' is quite different from simply
"appreciat[ing] the beauty of the world..." and thus conluding the existence
of God. etc.

regards,
Derek

CPJ2000

unread,
Jul 15, 2000, 3:00:00 AM7/15/00
to
derek wrote:

> Lord Bullingdon said:
>
> >>Indeed (and this is totally my uneducated guess) a man who saw
> >>such beauty in creation (gardens, animals, the universe etc.)
> >>would marvel at it's construction in such a way as to have at
> >>least momentary thoughts that all of this cannot be random.
>
> > To appreciate the beauty of the world and the universe does not
> > imply in any belief in the existence of God. This is a wrong
> > idea.
>
> If I might be so bold, M'Lud, you seem to be having problems with your
> conclusions, or rather, usurping the conclusions of others.

You noticed too, eh......?

> To believe that
> the way in which the physical universe manifests itself is suggestive of
> some organisational or purposeful 'authority' is quite different from simply
> "appreciat[ing] the beauty of the world..." and thus conluding the existence
> of God. etc.

<vbg>


CPJ2000


CPJ2000

unread,
Jul 15, 2000, 3:00:00 AM7/15/00
to
Tony Minkoff wrote:

Tony! I'm shocked!!!

Are you suggesting Frasier and Niles ever smoke(d) up like Bill and Alice in
"Eyes Wide Shut"?

(It would be fun to have Natasha and Lord Bullington thrash out this one.)


CPJ2000


derek

unread,
Jul 15, 2000, 3:00:00 AM7/15/00
to

In article <1deb9261...@usw-ex0104-087.remarq.com>, Lord Bullingdon
<figueiredo...@hotmail.com.invalid> wrote:


>>To believe that the way in which the physical universe
>>manifests itself is suggestive of some organisational or
>>purposeful 'authority' is quite different from
>>simply "appreciat [ing] the beauty of the world..." and thus
>>conluding the existence of God. etc.
>

> Of course it is different. What I am saying is that a man can

> see such beauty in creation (gardens, animals, the universe
> etc.) and NOT marvel at it's construction in such a way as to


> have at least momentary thoughts that all of this cannot be

> random, at all.
>
> To appreciate the beauty in creation does NOT imply in having
> thoughts that it is not random. Not at all.
>
> Accept this, stop being illogical and silly.


Excuse me?

Goodbye,
Derek

AT

unread,
Jul 15, 2000, 3:00:00 AM7/15/00
to
On Fri, 14 Jul 2000 20:54:37 -0700, Tony Minkoff
<admi...@uswest.net> wrote:

>
>Natural constants perfectly tuned for the development of life do not
>necessarily imply intelligent design. Probably the most popular
>alternative explanation (if it can be considered a single explanation;
>it has many interpretations) is the Anthropic Principle.
>


If the natural systems on this planet seem to follow an order, would
it not be likely to to conclude that their is a type of natural order
or harmony? I'm not talking about a creator here, just a natural order
underlying matter. I believe even Einstein believed in something
similar to that...

Interestingly enough, certain eastern religions(Taoism and such?)
also believe in this type of concept...

I read "The Tao of Physics" way back in HS and do not remember much
of it nor do I give it too much credence. But it's definately thought
provoking material...


Dave

unread,
Jul 15, 2000, 3:00:00 AM7/15/00
to
Tony Minkoff wrote:
>
> In article <396FA09F...@sympatico.ca>, CPJ2000
> <charle...@sympatico.ca> wrote:
>
> > Milich wrote:
> >
> > > This past month Astronomy magazine ran an article detailing how
> > > life exists because six specific numerical values that exist in
> > > the universe are finely tuned so as to product the right
> > > conditions for life to exist. The values include the attraction
> > > between subatomic particles, the total mass of the universe, the
> > > Hubble constant etc. They never used the G word but the writer of
> > > the article used the term "a fine tuned universe" many times. I
> > > have to believe that is SK's research, he had to have known about
> > > these natural values.
> >
> > YIKES!
>
> Natural constants perfectly tuned for the development of life do not
> necessarily imply intelligent design.

Escpecially if one example of where it occurs is examined outside of the
context of the innumerable examples of where it doesn't. For all we
know.

> Probably the most popular
> alternative explanation (if it can be considered a single explanation;
> it has many interpretations) is the Anthropic Principle.
>

I think if one of the 6 constants of physics was different, we would
still be here, but differently.

-----------------------------------------------------------------
rat...@gate.net
(Hammer nail here--> <-- for a new monitor.)
Seinfeld FAQ http://www.geocities.com/Hollywood/Set/7217/faq.html
-----------------------------------------------------------------
*NOTE* I am not responsible for equipment damage due to reeeeally
dumb children with no parental supervision, and access to a hammer.

Christopher Jenkins

unread,
Jul 16, 2000, 3:00:00 AM7/16/00
to
>He was a bit of a fatalist actually, but he was also
>very superstitious.

Kubrick superstitious - never would've guessed that one I don't think.
Katharina said she couldn't answer posts for a while, but would anyone care to
speculate on what you think she may mean by that? Simple/general superstitions,
complex ones, 'karma'? Hm.. can't help but wonder what she means by that.. I
always thought SK was probably contemplatively undecided on many things - many
more questions than answers..

Rod Munday

unread,
Jul 17, 2000, 3:00:00 AM7/17/00
to
Christopher Jenkins wrote:

> Katharina said she couldn't answer posts for a while, but would anyone care to
> speculate on what you think she may mean by that? Simple/general superstitions,
> complex ones, 'karma'? Hm.. can't help but wonder what she means by that.. I
> always thought SK was probably contemplatively undecided on many things - many
> more questions than answers..


Nothing dramatic actually, she is preparing for "Art in Action" where
she will be exhibiting and painting for 4 days along with her mother.
See Christiane's site for details of the event.

http://www.christianekubrick.net/

Regards Rod Munday

Christopher Jenkins

unread,
Jul 23, 2000, 3:00:00 AM7/23/00
to
Rod Munday wrote:

>> Katharina said she couldn't answer posts for a while, but would anyone care
>to
>> speculate on what you think she may mean by that? Simple/general
>superstitions,
>> complex ones, 'karma'? Hm.. can't help but wonder what she means by that..
>I
>> always thought SK was probably contemplatively undecided on many things -
>many
>> more questions than answers..
>
>Nothing dramatic actually, she is preparing for "Art in Action" where
>she will be exhibiting and painting for 4 days along with her mother.
>See Christiane's site for details of the event.

Oh sorry for the confusion - I was asking what you thought she meant in any
detail when she said SK was 'very superstitious.'

Reply all
Reply to author
Forward
0 new messages